Topics Topics Help/Instructions Help Edit Profile Profile Member List Register  
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Visit The Brewery's sponsor!
Brews & Views Bulletin Board Service * World Expressions * Fire Obama. Not McChrystal < Previous Next >

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 3218
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 - 04:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/mcchrystals -real-offense-96873364.html

There is a lot of uproar about Gen. Stanley’s McChrystal’s disrespectful comments about his civilian bosses in the Obama administration, and President Obama would be entirely justified in firing McChrystal for statements McChrystal and his subordinates made to Rolling Stone. Obama is a deeply flawed commander-in-chief who doesn’t want to be fighting a war on terror, but he is the commander-in-chief. He should have a general who will carry out his policies without public complaint until the voters can decide to change those policies.

But the bigger problem with McChrystal’s leadership has always been the general’s devotion to unreasonably restrictive rules of engagement that are resulting in the unnecessary deaths of American and coalition forces. We have had many, many accounts of the rules endangering Americans, and the Rolling Stone article provides more evidence. In the story, a soldier at Combat Outpost JFM who had earlier met with McChrystal was killed in a house that American officers had asked permission to destroy. From the article:

The night before the general is scheduled to visit Sgt. Arroyo’s platoon for the memorial, I arrive at Combat Outpost JFM to speak with the soldiers he had gone on patrol with. JFM is a small encampment, ringed by high blast walls and guard towers. Almost all of the soldiers here have been on repeated combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and have seen some of the worst fighting of both wars. But they are especially angered by Ingram’s death. His commanders had repeatedly requested permission to tear down the house where Ingram was killed, noting that it was often used as a combat position by the Taliban. But due to McChrystal’s new restrictions to avoid upsetting civilians, the request had been denied. “These were abandoned houses,” fumes Staff Sgt. Kennith Hicks. “Nobody was coming back to live in them.”

One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. “Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,” the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests. “Does that make any sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch. “We should just drop a bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?”
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 7216
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 - 04:46 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yawn . . .

Consider this. The conflict cannot be won militarily. We must win the hearts and minds of the population. Killing civilians makes this difficult. Now here is the part that takes a little gray matter to understand and does not scream black and white. In the short run, the rules of engagement necessary to win the hearts and minds will result in more American casualties. Reread "short run." If we can win, in the long run, there will be less casualties because the conflict will be over sooner.

Perhaps those who can only see minimizing casualties, no matter what, might want to think about bugging out now.
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 3219
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 - 04:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Well Dan, I certainly hope your son is not a victim of the "Long Run"
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 11827
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 - 05:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

It's certainly not the first conflict between the commander-in-chief and a general in the field. The Constitution gives the president a lot of latitude.

Afghanistan is very typical of the wars of the past 60 years. At its heart it's a political rather than military conflict, and it places the military at a considerable disadvantage. This is a fact of life that will not change.

Unfortunately I'm not sure it's possible for America to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. Despite their dislike of the Taliban, they hate foreigners, especially Westerners, even more.
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 3220
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 - 06:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I am not interested in winning hearts & minds, and neither are our troops. We need to kill the enemy, and keep on killing the enemy until he loses the will to fight. That is how we defeated Japanese zealotry, and that is the only way we can ever hope to defeat radical Islam.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 7217
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 - 07:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bob, I think you meant the "short run" or you didn't understand what I was talking about.

Here, maybe we should revert to "staying the coarse" and go back to "search and destroy." The wonderful strategy that served us so well over all those years. It could serve us equally well for years and years to come!

Bill, I dreadfully fear that you are correct. I will admit to a deep, selfish and personal bias to "bugging out ASAP."
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 7218
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 - 07:05 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"I am not interested in winning hearts & minds, and neither are our troops. We need to kill the enemy, and keep on killing the enemy until he loses the will to fight."

Tough to do in a religious war, and make no mistake, this is a religious war, especially from the point of view of our opponents.


"That is how we defeated Japanese zealotry, and that is the only way we can ever hope to defeat radical Islam."

Actually no, there were these really big bombs. We still have them you know. Which pile of rocks do you think we should rearrange to "win" in Afghanistan?
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 3221
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 - 07:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dan, you seem to forget about Guaddalcanal, Iwo Jima, Saipan, Okinawa, and countless other battles where the Japanese fought and were slaughtered nearly to the last man.

We only dropped the bomb as a calculated and reasoned assessment in order to avoid the losses we would have suffered in a homeland invasion of Japan.

The Japanese knew they were defeated, yet continued to fight. Had they known we only had two bombs, we can only speculate if they would have given up or continued the fight.

"Which pile of rocks do you think we should rearrange to "win" in Afghanistan?"

Detroit.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 7219
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 - 07:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Oh, the bloody forest for all the damn trees . . .

One might make the argument that Japan was engaged in a religious war too, but they had real targets on their soil, not just more rocks.

"Detroit." Ahh, your true "colors!"
 

Chumley
Senior Member
Username: Chumley

Post Number: 6124
Registered: 02-2003
Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 - 08:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Actually, Bob, I found that kind of funny.
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 3222
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 - 08:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Thanks Chumbucket...it was meant tongue-in-cheek.

Dan was trying once again to convince me that genocide is a valid option. He just loooves to propose that concept. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 7220
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 - 08:48 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bob, genocide is the only option you seem to have beyond more whinning.

Pity about your sarcasm training, or lack there of.
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 3223
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 - 08:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dan, if you didn't have that extra chromosome, maybe you'd get it.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 7221
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 - 10:47 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bob, would you like to learn about my cousin Matt?
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 11828
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 - 12:02 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"We need to kill the enemy, and keep on killing the enemy until he loses the will to fight."

That strategy from WW II didn't serve the US very well in Vietnam, where by various estimates about 2 million of the enemy were killed yet it's rather clear that the US lost the war.

I don't believe that approach will result in a different outcome in Afghanistan. It didn't work for the British or the Russians there either.
 

Doug Pescatore
Senior Member
Username: Doug_p

Post Number: 2250
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 - 12:11 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Do you think we can convince all or the terrorist to occupy a couple of islands so we can charge the beaches? We could even give them a couple of months to build some caves just as long as they have it in thier minds that leaving the island would be mean dishonor on thier families. Boy howdy wouldn't that be a Jim Dandy of a solution....hey we could even give them Iwo no one else is using it!

Heck maybe we can get them to dig a big trench and we can dig another one say a hundred yards away and we can just charge each other until someone wins.

ahhh good times......


Doug
 

Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob

Post Number: 3224
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 - 01:51 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"That strategy from WW II didn't serve the US very well in Vietnam, where by various estimates about 2 million of the enemy were killed yet it's rather clear that the US lost the war."

We lost Vietnam because WE gave up. We had the North Vietnamese on the ropes and didn't even realize it because we were too busy fighting each other.

In America, the enemy is always within.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 11830
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 - 02:06 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bob, I hesitate to reopen wounds that are now more than a generation old, but what evidence do you have that North Vietnam was ready to give up? I'm not aware of any historical sources for that interpretation.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 7222
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 - 02:37 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bill, you don't listen to the Right talk radio.
 

Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 1818
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 - 08:05 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Doug is right on the money.

In WWII, you generally (if we leave the East front out of it) knew who was an enemy soldier and who was a civilian. Japanese soldiers wore Japanese uniforms, they manned machine guns and pillboxes and trenches and caves and foxholes.

In Afghanistan you never know who's the enemy and who's a wedding party or a shepherd. Bob, are you suggesting to "kill'em all and let God sort'em out"? There's a word for that, and it starts with a G.

If that's not what you're suggesting, then you need to delineate more clearly just what exactly you are suggesting.
 

Jeff Rankert
Member
Username: Hopfenundmalz

Post Number: 211
Registered: 06-2008
Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 - 12:53 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

News flash.

President Lincoln fires General McClellan.

Story at 11.
 

Doug Pescatore
Senior Member
Username: Doug_p

Post Number: 2251
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 - 01:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bob,
My dad enlisted in the Army in 1966, not drafted but enlisted. He was diverted to Korea from Vietnam when the DMZ war (or second Korea war....nobody knows about) became more deadly than Vietnam. North Korea was using the same sort of run shot and hide tactics as the Vietcong and were very successful at it. But unlike the Vietcond we knew were the North Korean bases and camps were accross the DMZ. The history books and several papers at the amry war college state that hostilities ceased without negotiations or victory and that China may have strong armed North Korea to do so because of thier desire to have relations with the US. But my dad remembers it differently. He said that the regular army of South Korea were some real bad @sses and because the North attacked villages with no military and generally attacked targets that were easy they wanted blood and nothing less would do. He said that teh way the North decided to stop was the US army opened up giant holes in the DMZ and the South marched north and killeded everything with a pulse at each base or camp they came upon. He said the South put the North on notice that they would be willing to step in and go big and conventional if the North kept up the ticky tack attacks and it worked. Very much like a shock and awe approach.

We could not do that with the Vietcong although we did try. They were just too decentralized and too good and making any civilian casualty a recruiting tool.

BTW, my dad stayed in the army for 20 years. I grew up on army posts all the way through high school. I lost my next store neighbor in the New Foundland crash when our troops were returning home from the Sinai. My best friend's dad provided the MPs to protect the President when he visited Granada. The pilot down the street crashed his Black Hawk during the Granada invasion (pilot error). My friends and I would joke when the nuke drills would go off on post because getting under a desk and covering your head will only mean that you will be vaporized with your face on the floor and your butt in the air when you live on ground zero. We thought there would be better things to do with that last 20 to 30 minutes.

I support the military with everything I have. I have learned through my childhood that they are drilled and redrilled on the chain of command and that the President is the commander no matter who he is and whether you voted for him or not. McChrystal and his aides (I don't remember General's aides speaking freely) broke that chain of command and it is up to the President whether he asks for him to step down or even court martials him (yes it is in the regs that this is a court martial offense) or slaps him on the wrist and sends him back or reassigns him. It is not our choice, we made the choice in November of 2008.

Doug

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: